• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do far right Conservatives/Libertarians lack empathy?

Do those on the far right lack empathy?

  • Yes

    Votes: 22 26.2%

  • No

    Votes: 62 73.8%
  • Total voters
    84
  • Poll closed .
Hamster Buddha said:
The problem with this line of thought, is that you are confusing one's political beliefs of what are the realities of the world, and one's personal belief system. The fact is the government is worst way to go about helping someone, the built-in bureaucracy is the most inefficient way to help those in need, as all it does it steal from one to give to another, and much of that money never gets to where you want it to go. That has nothing to do when it comes to their personal lives though. Look at Churches for example and all the good they do in the community.

You're going to find and equal lack of empathy on both sides of the fence, remember that actions speak louder than words.



Again, the problem here is that you are confusing political realities, with personal beliefs. Say what you will, but Capitalism has done more worldwide to bring people out of poverty than Socialism ever had or will.
Click to expand...

I think you are confusing my point.. I'm not arguing for or against one political ideology.. I'm saying quite literally "conservatives have more of a lone wolf mentality and liberals have more of a we're all in this together mentality" if you deny that then you have your head in the sand.
 
OnWisconsin said:
I think you are confusing my point.. I'm not arguing for or against one political ideology.. I'm saying quite literally "conservatives have more of a lone wolf mentality and liberals have more of a we're all in this together mentality" if you deny that then you have your head in the sand.
Click to expand...

i will translate your statement to clarity it....by making a few changes to it.


"I think you are confusing my point.. I'm not arguing for or against one political ideology.. I'm saying quite literally "conservatives have more of a mentality of individualism and liberals have more of a collectivist mentality, if you deny that then you have your head in the sand"
 
Last edited:
ernst barkmann said:
i will translate your statement to clarity it....by making a few changes to it.


"I think you are confusing my point.. I'm not arguing for or against one political ideology.. I'm saying quite literally "conservatives have more of a mentality of individualism and liberals have more of a collectivist mentality, if you deny that then you have your head in the sand"
Click to expand...

Thank you, apparently I was speaking greek.
 
OnWisconsin said:
Thank you, apparently I was speaking greek.
Click to expand...

no your were not, its just...... "lone wolf...vs we are all is this together"


brings up images of different things....the former, sounds like a "isolated" get out of here picture in my mind, while the latter conjures up the loving and embracing, i love you and am here for you kind of thing.
 
OnWisconsin said:
I think you are confusing my point.. I'm not arguing for or against one political ideology.. I'm saying quite literally "conservatives have more of a lone wolf mentality and liberals have more of a we're all in this together mentality" if you deny that then you have your head in the sand.
Click to expand...

Let's do a little fact checking then shall we?

Would anyone argue that the Mormon Church is dominated by Republicans? I would assume not, especially considering that the last Republican candidate was Mormon (but just in case you want to argue: Top Mormon church posts dominated by registered Republicans) The Chronicle of Philanthropy released a fascinating survey a couple of years back on how (and how much) America donates to charitable organizations. Topping the journal’s list of most generous states is Utah. Four of Utah’s cities headed up the list of U.S. metropolitan areas when it comes to percentage of discretionary income given to charity. Households in Provo, Utah, give away the most as a percentage — 13.9% of discretionary income. For the state as a whole, 10.6% of Utah’s discretionary income goes to charity. But Utah is a bit of an outlier. The rest of the more generous states are dominated by the South (Another strong Republican Region) – the country’s most Christian region and another faith that regularly emphasizes tithing 10%. Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee and South Carolina round out the top five.

And you wanna know the kicker? The more generous states voted for Sen. John McCain in 2008, while the seven-lowest ranking ones voted for then-Sen. Barack Obama.

How Religious Affiliation Affects Charitable Giving

As I stated before, you are confusing political beliefs, with personal ones. So while you may be correct that conservatives don't believe in giving government handouts, they do however believe in helping one another which is clearly demonstrated above.

giphy.gif
 
I have zero empathy for anyone who can, but won't try.
 
Slyfox696 said:
Yes and no. While there are some bastards on the far right who completely lack any ability to care about anyone else (which is certainly not unique to any political persuasion), I think on a most basic level it's not about a lack of caring of others, it's just a different set of priorities.

Generally speaking, those who are considered on "the left" try to focus their energy on improving the community, with the idea if the community is stronger, life will be better for the individuals. Those on "the right" tend to believe in focusing their energy on the individual, with the idea if all individuals are better off, then the community is will be stronger and life will be better.

I don't think it's so much that people on the right don't care about others, they just believe effort should be put into improving the individual instead of the the community.
Click to expand...

Maybe some good points. But I do think it's more than that. Some extremists on the right believe that some poor people should die, if they can't afford health care, believing it's all their own fault, so they deserve to die. That's pretty extreme. And shows a lack of empathy about how some people may find themselves at the bottom of life's barrel, even if it's all or partly their own fault. It's rare to hear liberals express the idea of wanting their so-called enemies to die. And maybe that's it. Far righters view the less fortunate as their enemies. So, yes, there is a lack of empathy there. (You'll find more hunters on the right, as well. It is inherent in hunting that a person possess a lack of empathy, so that the killing of another animal for fun does not bother them.)
 
OnWisconsin said:
A complete inability to relate to those who are less fortunate.
Click to expand...

All you have to do is check out charitable giving stats to see who has real empathy. In addition, denying assistance is at times, the most beneficial thing to do.
 
Do those on the far right lack empathy?
Click to expand...

i think that's an oversimplification, so no.
 
clownboy said:
And there you nailed the basic leftist problem. You simply cannot tolerate individual freedom. If it cannot be controlled it cannot be allowed. That governs your every philosophy. And of course that means YOU get to decide what constitutes control over oneself (for everyone but yourself).
Click to expand...

Surely you jest...I'm a leftist now? Eh, I thinks there are about, oh, a couple dozen dozen people here who are scratching their heads on that one...

Individual freedom is mmm...mmm... good.

I do abhor hypocrisy though...

You cry against government control but only because you view it as competition. You cry against totalitarian governments and despotism but would only replace it with a privatized tyranny.

You'd applaud while millions suffer at the hands, the greedy hands of the few, but would be first to call on the evil, heavy-handed government to protect your fortune for you.

It's worse than hypocritical, its cowardice.
 
johndylan1 said:
All you have to do is check out charitable giving stats to see who has real empathy. In addition, denying assistance is at times, the most beneficial thing to do.
Click to expand...

You mean those tax write off charitable donations where they simply sign a check and say here, I'm a good person?
 
1750Texan said:
as you are solving poverty...people still get hungry.

Typical Libertarian thought process. Fix poverty and everything works out.
Click to expand...

You are so close to understanding the right.... let me clarify. Yes, we believe public policy should "fix" or better promote opportunities for wealth creation lifting all who will. At the same time and apart from public policy we give to charity in an attempt to take care of immediate needs.
 
OnWisconsin said:
You mean those tax write off charitable donations where they simply sign a check and say here, I'm a good person?
Click to expand...

Always the cynic ey?

Nonprofits the world over benefit from knowing what motivates wealthy donors to give. Similar to the last study, the 2012 study found that wealthy donors give under the following circumstances:

• Being moved by how a gift can make a difference (74 percent).
• Feeling financially secure (71 percent).
• Because they give to the same organization or cause annually (69 percent).
• Because they feel the organization they are supporting is efficient (68 percent).

Less than one-third (32 percent) of donors cited tax advantages among their chief motivators for giving. In fact, half (50 percent) reported they would maintain their current charitable giving levels even if income tax deductions for donations were eliminated, and 95 percent would maintain or increase their bequest giving even if tax deductions for estate giving were permanently eliminated.

- See more at: 2012 Bank of America Study of High Net Worth Philanthropy Finds Donors Firmly Committed to and Highly Engaged With Nonprofits
 
Glen Contrarian said:
I absolutely disagree. Conservatives as a whole absolutely do have empathy...

...but the issue's deeper than a simple question.

The smaller issue is that those who lack empathy - as Ayn Rand certainly did - are significantly more likely to be conservative. The bigger issue by far is that conservatives are being taught and pressured by their own to believe that empathy for the less fortunate is a bad thing, that helping the poor get a leg up in life is actually hurting the poor, teaching the poor to be lazy.

The same thing could be seen in any dictatorship: people are the same all over the world, but when the people of a nation are being told a thing and do not for whatever reason get the other side of the story, they're more likely to believe that thing. America's conservatives have been taught to believe that liberals and the poor want to destroy America, to destroy the American way of life...and any conservative who happens to agree with any liberal point of view is seen as a traitor, a turncoat.

So while conservatives certainly do have empathy for the less fortunate, most of them are afraid of showing that empathy (or of showing agreement with any liberal point of view) for fear of being seen by their fellow conservatives as traitors, as RINO's or CINO's. I'm not trying to make any comparisons to Nazism, but Goering hit the nail on the head in his famous quote:

"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY."

How many times have we heard the conservative politicians and pundits claim that America is under attack from liberals? How many times have we seen the conservative elite reject any conservative politician for even considering a negotiated compromise on major issues facing America?

It's not a matter of conservatives lacking empathy. It's a matter of conservatives being pressured to believe that which is not true.
Click to expand...

..... OR we believe that the best way to help people isn't always through government assistance, especially at the federal level.
 
OnWisconsin said:
Could that be because those who have the financial means to be "generous" with their money are by in large, Republicans?
Click to expand...

I doubt that your assumption holds up, however if you believe that republicans know what it takes to have "financial means", why not use their ideas to help others achieve financial means? It's usually a bad Idea to take financial advice from one who has little money, no?
 
JumpinJack said:
Maybe some good points. But I do think it's more than that. Some extremists on the right believe that some poor people should die, if they can't afford health care, believing it's all their own fault, so they deserve to die. That's pretty extreme.
Click to expand...

Where have you seen this argued?

It's rare to hear liberals express the idea of wanting their so-called enemies to die. And maybe that's it. Far righters view the less fortunate as their enemies. So, yes, there is a lack of empathy there. (You'll find more hunters on the right, as well. It is inherent in hunting that a person possess a lack of empathy, so that the killing of another animal for fun does not bother them.)
Click to expand...

:roll:

1. Liberals have plenty of punish-thy-enemies going around. From President Punish Your Enemies And Reward Your Friends, Don't Think We're Not Keeping Score, because If You Bring A Knife We'll Bring A Gun to lower level functionaries seeking to use the power of an IRS post to punish those with whom they disagree. Coercion is a stronger part of modern Liberalism, an assumption they kept from Progressivism.

2. Compare the violence of (for example) the anti-War and Occupy protests to the violence of (for example) the Tea Party protests. See who is actually more violent, and willing to harm their "enemies".
 
OnWisconsin said:
A complete inability to relate to those who are less fortunate.
Click to expand...
It depends how you define "Far right conservatives", "libertarians", and "lack empathy".

It's entirely possible that many do, but have different conclusions based on that empathy.
 
OnWisconsin said:
Click to expand...


man (A) refuses to buy insurance........EXERCISING FREEDOM to do that.

then he must accept charity, of face the consequences of large debt.

that is what freedom is all about.

when asked "should society just let him die?"........Ron Paul...no?

only a few people said yeah, when wolf asked the question.
 
man [A] refuses to have car repaired because it does not want to pay the cost, even though mechanic tells he its going to break down sooner or later.

car breaks down, man must accept the consequences for refusing to get it repaired........lost of work, money for tow, and cost of repair.

its called freedom.
 
ernst barkmann said:
man [A] refuses to have car repaired because it does not want to pay the cost, even though mechanic tells he its going to break down sooner or later.

car breaks down, man must accept the consequences for refusing to get it repaired........lost of work, money for tow, and cost of repair.

its called freedom.
Click to expand...

I think you just proved my point.. lack of empathy.
 
I don't feed the bears because I care about the bears. When the bears get fed, they become dependent, which is far worse for the bears. If the bears don't get fed, they continue to provide for themselves.

It's not only for the bears' own good, but also for my neighbors, since bears hanging around neighborhoods tends to cause problems.
 
OnWisconsin said:
I think you just proved my point.. lack of empathy.
Click to expand...

:shrug: if by "empathy" you mean "enabling".

In the meantime, conservatives are more likely to give their money to charity, more likely to give blood, and more likely to volunteer at soup kitchens and the like. The liberal response to this is typically that once you control for religiosity and income, conservatives and liberals are actually equally generous - an interesting argument, that once you strip out the main cause of conservatives' empathy, they only tie liberals. Regardless, it would certainly seem to disprove the thesis that somehow conservatives are significantly less likely to care about their fellow man.
 
OnWisconsin said:
I think you just proved my point.. lack of empathy.
Click to expand...

i think you just showed something....not taking responsibility for ones self.......and wanting to shrug your freedom to chose you own way!

what did Wolff say...man makes good money....but does not want to pay 200 /300 a month for insurance.


i pay $305 dollars a month for my insurance....its something i accept, and know i must do........others can follow my example.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom